Flutterby™! : A Science Book Should Mean, not be...

Some of the most exciting writing I've ever read has been in good science popularizations. Back in high school in the mid-60s, for example, I read a book by Asimov on the possible changes to be wrought by understanding DNA that electrified my young mind, and turned out to be amazingly prescient. The venerable classic The Microbe Hunters , written nearly 70 years ago, reads like an adventure thriller, where you start cheering when Walter Reed proves that mosquitos are a disease vector, and cry when Pasteur saves the lives of Russian kulaks bitten by rabid wolves.

In the Telegraph of London, Richard Dawkins discusses why science writing is so ignored by the literary cognoscenti, and what makes a science book great. It comes down to A) makes things simple, but not too simple; and B) find the fact or number that amazes the reader, and lets them touch the sense of wonder that motivates the scientist.